Dick Cheney: Complaining for What?

On Christmas Day 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian terrorist, tried igniting an explosive in his pants on a United States airplane near Detroit. He failed and was subdued by his fellow passengers and immediately brought in to authorities. Because of the failed attack the left and right sides of the political spectrum have gained another excuse to either praise or critique President Barack Obama. Among the leaders of the criticism is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney, a staunch conservative on foreign and domestic issues slammed Obama for his apparently lack of interest in national security and for his “late” response (. His evaluation of the system had minimum compliments for the 44th president.

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," Cheney said in a recent interview with Politico. "He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.”

Calm down there Dick. Let’s not bring hypocrisy in this argument.

First off, here’s proof from his own speeches that Obama is at war.

The fifth paragraph of his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

In a February 2009 CNN interview: "I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations."

In a March 2009 speech: In order to explain why and with whom the United States is at war and said, "Al-Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan."

In his December 2009 speech at West Point on his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan: He repeatedly called military intervention in Waziristan (Border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan) a war and said, "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al-Qaeda."

In acceptance for the Nobel Peace Prize: He said, "We are at war" and noted "the world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense."

As of now, there are 50 reports of drone attacks in areas such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. That’s more than President Bush and his partner Dick ever did during their eight-year presidency. I’m not condoning these drone attacks, but it shows that he is on the offensive when it comes to eliminating terrorist targets.

So Dick, you’re complaints aren’t exactly well researched or backed up. Hypocrisy plays in a role in this by the lack of interest in the Dec. 2001 “Shoe Bomber” plot.

More than three months after the infamous 9/11 attacks, Richard Colvin Reid, an Islamic extremist boarded a plane from Paris to Miami concealing hidden explosives in his shoes. The attack failed after being mauled down by fellow passengers, one of whom had their thumb bit severely. Authorities claimed nearly 100 grams of acetone peroxide and pentaerythritol tetra nitrate. These two compounds could have blown a massive hole in the airplane and kill hundreds of lives. Bush and Cheney responded six days later, compared to the two days it took Obama to respond. Three months after being attacked, I’m pretty sure the national security would have been more tightly regulated. Evidently not.

So what right does Dick have for calling out the current President for not taking national security seriously? When you’re 68 years old and had your approval ratings in the 30s, you really shouldn’t critique the Commander-in-Chief during his first year of office. It’s stupid. It’s not logical. It’s Dick.